Black/Cotton
1AC (Scribd) - Back to the Future – The Case for Farm Subsidy Reform http://www.scribd.com/doc/21950969/1AC-Farm-Subsidy-Reform '- Brian M. Riedl* stated in 2007:' “Lawmakers would be hard-pressed to enact a set of policies that are more destructive to farmers, taxpayers, and consumers than the current farm policies. For these and other reasons, organizations representing taxpayers, consumers, environmentalists, international trade, Third World countries, and even farmers themselves have united around the shared conclusion that the current farm subsidy system is failing and in dire need of reform.” '- In today’s economic times, we simply cannot afford to continually support inefficient policies that not only abuse our tax payer dollars, but that also inflict permanent damage to our economy. The recession has brought immeasurable loss to our country, and now is the time to stop this devastating loss from perpetuating. It is because of an unresolved economic inefficiency that my partner and I stand firmly Resolved: 'that the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy. '- To ensure that we are all on the same page during today’s round, we present…' OBSERVATION 1: DEFINITIONS '- Point one is the definitions pertaining specifically to the resolution…' A) Significantly. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary of 2009 defines significantly as: “To a significant degree.” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significantly) '- In addition, it defines significant as:' “Having or likely to have influence or effect.” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant) B) Reform. 'The Cambridge University Online Dictionary defines reform as:' “To make an improvement, especially by changing the structure of something.” (Cambridge Online Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, Copyright 2009, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=66396&dict=CALD) '' '''C) Environmental policy. Environmental policy constitutes many things, but two specific parts of it will be focused on by the affirmative team. Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya and Dr. William L. Ascher explained in their 2001 book that:' “Environmental policy includes incentives policies to encourage environmental improvements to discourage pollution and depletion.” Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya editor (Ph.D. from the Russian Academy of Sciences in Economics and Visiting Professor of Environmental Policy at Duke University) & Dr. William L. Ascher editor (Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale and Professor of Government and Economics at Claremont McKenna College), 2001, Book “The guide to Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development,” Duke University Press, p. 186 Books '- Point two is the definition pertaining specifically to this round…' '- Sustainable Agriculture. Dr. James Horne, a leading scholar on sustainable agriculture, defined it as:' “A variety of philosophies and farm techniques that are low chemical, resource and energy conserving, and resource efficient.” William S. Eubanks II Attorney at the Washington D.C. public interest environmental law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal; co-authored a brief to the United States Supreme Court the effects of military sonar on marine mammals; Environmental Law LL.M., summa cum laude, Vermond Law School, “The Sustainable Farm Bill: A Proposal for Permanent Environmental Change,” Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J. (2009), and the Environmental Law Institute, 2009 (ETHOS) James Horne quoted '-In the round today, my partner and I will show you how affirming the resolution through voting for our suggested reforms will result in a desirable comparative advantage over the Status Quo. But first, we must explain the situation of the Status Quo by taking you to…' OBSERVATION 2: INHERENCY FACT. Subsidies Intended to Help Farmers. However, in 2009, William S. Eubanks** explained the transition between the original intent of subsidies – temporary relief for small farms – to commodity subsidies – unneeded artificial support for five commodity crops: “Farmers suffered severely from the Great Depression. The federal government acted quickly to enact a farm bill to temporarily protect small farms, called the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Although Farm Bill subsidies originally provided price supports for over 100 crops, the decisions made by those in power have resulted in the gradual narrowing of commodity subsidies to a select handful of crops, distortion of the agricultural market by artificially supporting only these select crops, and the slow, painful death of small farming in the United States.” - As the evidence shows, what was once a well intentioned policy has overtime evolved into one that severely stifles our market. Small farming, the backbone of our capitalistic economic situation, is slowly slipping through the cracks as the United States government pads the pockets of multi-national agribusinesses. - Furthermore, the status quo results in several harms. We will clarify this by taking you to… OBSERVATION 3: HARMS HARM 1. The status quo promotes 'Inefficiency. ' '- Bruce M. Riedl* – an expert in areas of 'Federal spending, appropriations, economic growth and agriculture' – explained in 2007 that:' “Current farm policies are so poorly designed that they actually worsen the conditions they claim to solve. For example: Farm subsidies are intended to alleviate farmer poverty, but the majority of subsidies go to commercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and net worths of nearly $2 million. Farm subsidies are intended to help struggling family farmers. Instead, they harm them by excluding them from most subsidies, financing the consolidation of family farms, and raising land values to levels that prevent young people from entering farming. Farm subsidies are intended to be consumer-friendly and taxpayer-friendly. Instead, they cost Americans billions each year in higher taxes and higher food costs.” HARM 2. The status quo’s policy results in Environmental Harm. '- Jennifer Hoffpauir*** said in Spring 2009:' “The Department of Agriculture throws billions of dollars at farmers each year, encouraging them to grow as much as they can of certain crops. Farmers respond by doing just that. In the process, they use fertilizers to replenish the soil, pesticides to kill the bugs, herbicides to kill the weeds, and plow grassland to grow yet more crops. The enormous yields that result exact a huge environmental cost.” '- Because our current way of dealing with farm subsidies has become extremely economically inefficient, and because it is harming the environment, we present an alternative. Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on encouraging environmental damage, why not use subsidies as an incentive to 'help 'the environment and 'conserve 'natural resources? How can this be done? We offer a way in…' OBSERVATION 4: PLAN Agency and Enforcement: '''Shall come from Congress, the United States Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other appropriate branches of the United States Federal Government. '''Mandates: 1) Replace commodity subsidies with sustainable agriculture subsidies. Congress shall amend the Farm Bill and replace commodity subsidies by instead offering subsidies to farms using sustainable agricultural methods. 2) Remove categorical exclusion. Congress shall amend the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to remove the categorical exclusion of commodity subsidy programs, thus subjecting agricultural policy to the same standards and regulations as other sectors. '- This plan will be passed immediately upon an Affirmative ballot, and no additional 'funding' is needed. If an unforeseen circumstance should arise requiring additional funding, it will come from the United States Federal Government’s normal operating budget. The Affirmative team reserves the right to clarify the plan as needed.' '- We will now show you how subsidizing sustainable agriculture will be more economically efficient – and how it will be less harmful, and even beneficial to the environment – by taking you to…' OBSERVATION 5: ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGE 1. Benefit responsible farms. ' '- Taxpayer money must be spent wisely, rather than being squandered on megafarms. Sustainable agriculture subsidies will be offered to all farmers who use sustainable farming practices. Thus, all farmers will have the opportunity to benefit from farm subsidies, not just the wealthiest farms, and they will have an incentive to use responsible farming methods. '- In 2009, the Stanford Environmental Law Journal** observed that:' “A more workable policy solution would be to offer these subsidy incentives to all farmers based on their farming practices, regardless of what crops they cultivate. This would create a much more just system than the current subsidy framework that excludes 60% of American farmers from any subsidies whatsoever.” ADVANTAGE 2. Restore the farm bill’s original purpose. - The Stanford Environmental Law Journal** said in 2009 that: “By moving away from corn and commodity crop subsidies in favor of paying farmers for employing sustainable agricultural methods, Congress will foster a much more effective piece of legislation that is more aligned with the original goals of the Farm Bill.” ADVANTAGE 3. Help the environment. '- Subsidizing sustainable agriculture will benefit public health, the quality of food, and the environment because sustainable agriculture requires smaller amounts of chemicals and responsible farming practices.' '- William S. Eubanks** noted in 2009 that:' “Sustainable agriculture will greatly help to repair local ecosystems, boost farmers’ yields as the ecosystem improves, and mitigate the degradation caused by decades of mechanized agriculture under the Farm Bill. As farmers well know, sustainable agriculture includes polycultures and crop rotations that are essential to protect soils from erosion and streambeds from sedimentation. Sustainable agricultural systems do not rely heavily on harmful chemical inputs of fertilizers or toxic pesticides that pose serious threats to both humans and wildlife. Further, studies indicate that sustainable farming systems ‘use 30% to 70% less energy per unit of land than conventional systems, a critical factor in terms of climate change and eventual fossil fuel shortages’.” '- An environmental policy incentivizing sustainable agriculture will better reflect the original purpose of farm subsidies while benefiting more farmers, decreasing public health risks, and promoting responsible agriculture practices. Reforming existing environmental policy by including incentivizations for sustainable farming would overall be more economically efficient, and it would be spending your tax money in a way that would benefit 'your 'health, not just million dollar agribusiness.' '- Thank you, and I now stand open for cross-examination.' Credentials *''Brian M. Riedl'' (Senior Policy Analyst and Grover Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. ''Areas of expertise:' Federal spending, appropriations, economic growth, agriculture and welfare reform. Brian Riedl is the Heritage Foundation’s lead budget analyst and has built a solid reputation for interpreting, explaining and reforming the often arcane realm of federal budget policy'), '“'How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers, Too,”'' ''The Heritage Foundation'' (the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with more than 515,000 individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 244 and an expense budget of $61 million. ''Mission:' To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense), ''''June 20, 2007', http://www.heritage.org/research/agriculture/bg2043.cfm'' **William S. Eubanks'' II Attorney at the Washington D.C. public interest environmental law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal; co-authored a brief to the United States Supreme Court on the effects of military sonar on marine mammals; Environmental Law LL.M., summa cum laude, Vermond Law School, '“The Sustainable Farm Bill: A Proposal for Permanent Environmental Change,”' 'Stanford Environmental Law Journal', 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J. ('2009'), and the Environmental Law Institute, 2009 (ETHOS)'' ***Jennifer Hoffpauir'' (a 2009 J.D. Candidate at the Georgetown University Law Center), '“The Environmental Impact of Commodity Subsidies: NEPA and the Farm Bill,”' 'Fordham Environmental Law Review', 'Spring 2009', 20 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 233 (ETHOS)''